2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

The FiA wants petrol in the composition of the same stuff that road cars get from the next gasoline station for F1. Nothing has changed with that objective and it is reality for the next year and probably for at least until 2018. The 2014 engines are designed for that fuel and they will not make willy nilly changes to it. So I propose we stay on topic and stop speculating about things that may come in six years or not at all.

[wuzak]

Changing over to methanol or bio-ethanol would have the effect of removing a large chunk of the teams' sponsorship/partner funding - that is, the fuel companies.

How much do you think Shell would support Ferrari if its only contribution was lubricants? I shouldn't hink nearly as much as they do now.

On the suject of fuels themselves, I shouldn't imagine that there is a major breakthrough with energy content. I have no doubt that the fuel suppliers will work hard to optimise their fuels to suot the new engines. And that, as now, will be on-going research.

In the fuel regs you will notice there is a bio-fuel component required. In the next few years I wouldn't be surprised if that increases.

There is also a 1% alllowance for other unlisted components. That's where the fuel companies could get creative.

[wuzak]

With reports in the last month or so of the new engines supposedly going to be much more powerful than expected, I'm just wondering if:
a) this would be possible under the rules,
b) Has the technology improved enough since Renault looked into it?
c) Do you think this would benefit an F1 an engine enough to consider implementing it?
d) Would the potential space saving/packaging improvements be worth considering?

a) VVT has been banned for many years in F1. Possibly since V10s were mandated (~2001) and certainly since the V8s (2006). The regulations also stipulate poppet valves (so no rotary valves like those Ilmor were researching at one point) and camshaft actuation with pneumatic valve return (ie operates on the valve like a spring).
b) Probably has been improved.
c) Not really. Since it i sbanned, and would probably be a heavier solution to now.
d) Doubtful that there is much gain in packaging. You get rid of the cams, but have to replace them with actuators.

With so many changes next year, if this is within the rules and there are benefits, is it even the biggest challenge in terms of the new engines, the two types of energy recovery, electrically spinning up the turbo, can they charge the ERS completely and use the provision for unlimited recovered energy if it's sent directly from the MGUH to the MGUK for added power? (did I get that right?).

They can send all of the energy recoved from the MGUH directly to the MGUK, or they can send some to the ES. Remember that they can recover 2MJ per lap from the brakes, and use 4MJ per lap. The ES also has a 4MJ storage limit.

[zztopless]

a) VVT has been banned for many years in F1. Possibly since V10s were mandated (~2001) and certainly since the V8s (2006). The regulations also stipulate poppet valves (so no rotary valves like those Ilmor were researching at one point) and camshaft actuation with pneumatic valve return (ie operates on the valve like a spring).
b) Probably has been improved.
c) Not really. Since it i sbanned, and would probably be a heavier solution to now.
d) Doubtful that there is much gain in packaging. You get rid of the cams, but have to replace them with actuators.

Hmm, vvti being banned in F1 does ring a bell now and of course makes no sense as it's a great way to be road relevant. iIn 2015 they are bringing back variable trumpet lengths, could this not be used for the same purpose? I'm sure I read on here that towards then end of them being allowed last time in the V10 era, the teams were using GPS data to vary their length around each track to maximise engine performance... No doubt that will not be permitted with the standard ECU (and rules), but it they are obviously allowing it to give scope for performance and efficiency gains by altering the length based on what the multitudes of sensors are reporting. This should be able to at least match a GPS based system on the intake side (not permitted on the exhaust valves), depending of the freedom they have with the software the controls them.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 111212.pdf

- Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
- Only reciprocating poppet valves with axial displacement are permitted.
- 5.9.3 Variable length intake trumpets are forbidden in 2014 only.

Is variable length intake trumpets a different way of achieving the same thing (on the intake side) as vvti? (I don't know, again, just asking).

Does the latter rule out getting rid of he camshaft, or is the wording subjective enough to allow teams to claim that an individual intake valves are still reciprocating and the exhaust valves are not variable in their geometry as per 5.9.1 and 5.9.2?

On a related note, how is a Helmholz exhaust chamber used by Red Bull and others not in violations of:

5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.

I assume the current regs have similar rules regarding exhaust geometry. The purpose of these chambers is to change the way the exhaust flows at different speeds and temperatures, trying to achieve what a downstream valve would do?

They can send all of the energy recoved from the MGUH directly to the MGUK, or they can send some to the ES. Remember that they can recover 2MJ per lap from the brakes, and use 4MJ per lap. The ES also has a 4MJ storage limit.

Yep, I do understand that, just not good at articulating what I mean. But essentially if they can recover enough from the kinetic recovery (MGUK) and Heat recovery (MGUH) to store 4MJ per lap and still have excess potential recovered heat energy from the exhaust (MGUH), does that allow them to send this excess energy directly to the MGUK for immediate extra power to the drive train and or directly (again not going through the batteries/supercaps) to the Turbo (I suppose the latter would only be useful after they had used some stored energy to spool it up from low reves, if that makes sense?).

[wuzak]

a) VVT has been banned for many years in F1. Possibly since V10s were mandated (~2001) and certainly since the V8s (2006). The regulations also stipulate poppet valves (so no rotary valves like those Ilmor were researching at one point) and camshaft actuation with pneumatic valve return (ie operates on the valve like a spring).
b) Probably has been improved.
c) Not really. Since it i sbanned, and would probably be a heavier solution to now.
d) Doubtful that there is much gain in packaging. You get rid of the cams, but have to replace them with actuators.

Hmm, vvti being banned in F1 does ring a bell now and of course makes no sense as it's a great way to be road relevant. iIn 2015 they are bringing back variable trumpet lengths, could this not be used for the same purpose? I'm sure I read on here that towards then end of them being allowed last time in the V10 era, the teams were using GPS data to vary their length around each track to maximise engine performance... No doubt that will not be permitted with the standard ECU (and rules), but it they are obviously allowing it to give scope for performance and efficiency gains by altering the length based on what the multitudes of sensors are reporting. This should be able to at least match a GPS based system on the intake side (not permitted on the exhaust valves), depending of the freedom they have with the software the controls them.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 111212.pdf

- Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
- Only reciprocating poppet valves with axial displacement are permitted.
- 5.9.3 Variable length intake trumpets are forbidden in 2014 only.

Is variable length intake trumpets a different way of achieving the same thing (on the intake side) as vvti? (I don't know, again, just asking).

Does the latter rule out getting rid of he camshaft, or is the wording subjective enough to allow teams to claim that an individual intake valves are still reciprocating and the exhaust valves are not variable in their geometry as per 5.9.1 and 5.9.2?

On a related note, how is a Helmholz exhaust chamber used by Red Bull and others not in violations of:

5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.

I assume the current regs have similar rules regarding exhaust geometry. The purpose of these chambers is to change the way the exhaust flows at different speeds and temperatures, trying to achieve what a downstream valve would do?

Variable geometry inlets doesn't alter the timing, it changes the ram effect and improves cylinder filling. The engine at high rpm needs a different intake runner length for optimum volumetric efficiency than it does at low rpm.

Not sure how much benefit this will be after 2014, where the MGUH can effectively control the compressor to suit anyway.

Variable geometry exhausts are banned. The Helmholtz chambers on the current exhausts would be of fixed geometry, and effectively alter the length of the exhaust runners, but are cannot vary the effective length.

a) VVT has been banned for many years in F1. Possibly since V10s were mandated (~2001) and certainly since the V8s (2006). The regulations also stipulate poppet valves (so no rotary valves like those Ilmor were researching at one point) and camshaft actuation with pneumatic valve return (ie operates on the valve like a spring).
b) Probably has been improved.
c) Not really. Since it i sbanned, and would probably be a heavier solution to now.
d) Doubtful that there is much gain in packaging. You get rid of the cams, but have to replace them with actuators.

Hmm, vvti being banned in F1 does ring a bell now and of course makes no sense as it's a great way to be road relevant. iIn 2015 they are bringing back variable trumpet lengths, could this not be used for the same purpose? I'm sure I read on here that towards then end of them being allowed last time in the V10 era, the teams were using GPS data to vary their length around each track to maximise engine performance... No doubt that will not be permitted with the standard ECU (and rules), but it they are obviously allowing it to give scope for performance and efficiency gains by altering the length based on what the multitudes of sensors are reporting. This should be able to at least match a GPS based system on the intake side (not permitted on the exhaust valves), depending of the freedom they have with the software the controls them.

http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... 111212.pdf

- Engines must have two inlet and two exhaust valves per cylinder.
- Only reciprocating poppet valves with axial displacement are permitted.
- 5.9.3 Variable length intake trumpets are forbidden in 2014 only.

Is variable length intake trumpets a different way of achieving the same thing (on the intake side) as vvti? (I don't know, again, just asking).

Does the latter rule out getting rid of he camshaft, or is the wording subjective enough to allow teams to claim that an individual intake valves are still reciprocating and the exhaust valves are not variable in their geometry as per 5.9.1 and 5.9.2?

On a related note, how is a Helmholz exhaust chamber used by Red Bull and others not in violations of:

5.9.1 With the exception of devices needed for control of pressure charging systems, variable
geometry exhaust systems are not permitted. No form of variable geometry turbine (VGT) or
variable nozzle turbine (VNT) or any device to adjust the gas throat section at the inlet to the
turbine wheel is permitted.

I assume the current regs have similar rules regarding exhaust geometry. The purpose of these chambers is to change the way the exhaust flows at different speeds and temperatures, trying to achieve what a downstream valve would do?

They can send all of the energy recoved from the MGUH directly to the MGUK, or they can send some to the ES. Remember that they can recover 2MJ per lap from the brakes, and use 4MJ per lap. The ES also has a 4MJ storage limit.

Yep, I do understand that, just not good at articulating what I mean. But essentially if they can recover enough from the kinetic recovery (MGUK) and Heat recovery (MGUH) to store 4MJ per lap and still have excess potential recovered heat energy from the exhaust (MGUH), does that allow them to send this excess energy directly to the MGUK for immediate extra power to the drive train and or directly (again not going through the batteries/supercaps) to the Turbo (I suppose the latter would only be useful after they had used some stored energy to spool it up from low reves, if that makes sense?).

The MGUH can send or receive energy from the MGUK at any time, and that energy flow is unrestricted.

It is, in fact, more desirable to send the power directly from teh MGUH to the MGUK because there is some loss when putting it in and taking it out of storage.

[Chuckjr]

Theres been a lot of discussion in here regarding the low psi (relatively speaking) turbo being used in 2014. We also have heard the tremendous blowing/wind sound from the Renault video offered not terribly long ago on this thread.

Ok, so if it is a lower pressure turbo than previously used in F1, yet a turbo that from what I have read here will spin at an enormously high rate - the wind noise was half the sound of the engine - why all the high speed fans/huge wind noise for a lower pressure system? Is the idea to have a huge air mass/volume but at a lower overall psi? Maybe all the air noise is the energy recovery units...could they use the excess for cooling?

Also, do the exhaust pipes have to be that stretched out!?? (Page 189) That would be horrible for the center of gravity and airflow, no?

Any help is appreciated, thank you, I'm sorry for the elementary questions compared to the last few pages….

[wuzak]

Theres been a lot of discussion in here regarding the low psi (relatively speaking) turbo being used in 2014. We also have heard the tremendous blowing/wind sound from the Renault video offered not terribly long ago on this thread.

Ok, so if it is a lower pressure turbo than previously used in F1, yet a turbo that from what I have read here will spin at an enormously high rate - the wind noise was half the sound of the engine - why all the high speed fans/huge wind noise for a lower pressure system? Is the idea to have a huge air mass/volume but at a lower overall psi? Maybe all the air noise is the energy recovery units...could they use the excess for cooling?

Also, do the exhaust pipes have to be that stretched out!?? (Page 189) That would be horrible for the center of gravity and airflow, no?

Any help is appreciated, thank you, I'm sorry for the elementary questions compared to the last few pages….

The turbine is oversized and there is no wastegate. All exhaust goes through the turbine. The power not required to drive the compressor can be recovered by the MGUH and fed directly back to the MGUK (nee KERS) to drive the car, or stored in the energy store (ES).

The lower the boost required, the lower the compressor drive power that is required, and thus a greater amount of energy can be recovered through the MGUH.

The spread out exhaust pipes may be for show only. Or maybe it is optimised to suit a certain operating condition for the turbine.

The exhaust pipes are reasonably low, for the most part. There is a minimum CoG for the power unit, but I'm not sure if the exhaust factors into weight calculations.

[xpensive]

Changing over to methanol or bio-ethanol would have the effect of removing a large chunk of the teams' sponsorship/partner funding - that is, the fuel companies.

How much do you think Shell would support Ferrari if its only contribution was lubricants? I shouldn't hink nearly as much as they do now.

I'm not so sure that the marketing-effect for Shell's fuel would go down, did anyone believe that the drivers were smoking in the days of tobacco sponsorship or that Sebastan Vettel is guzzling RedBull in between stints? Well, perhaps the latter...

On the suject of fuels themselves, I shouldn't imagine that there is a major breakthrough with energy content. I have no doubt that the fuel suppliers will work hard to optimise their fuels to suot the new engines. And that, as now, will be on-going research.

This is the dark area really, as petroleum distillate is not strictly identified per se;

The bulk of a typical gasoline consists of hydrocarbons with between four and 12 carbon atoms per molecule (commonly referred to as C4-C12).

I'm not a chemist and do not know what the above really means, but as the US EPA suggests a +/-4% variation depending on producer and season, it gives me an uneasy feeling when one MJ/kg difference will mean some 15 Hp.

[xxChrisxx]

Changing over to methanol or bio-ethanol would have the effect of removing a large chunk of the teams' sponsorship/partner funding - that is, the fuel companies.

How much do you think Shell would support Ferrari if its only contribution was lubricants? I shouldn't hink nearly as much as they do now.

And who do you think produces these non oil based fuels?

Its also slightly ironic that you picked shell, co-owners of Raizen. Who are one of the biggest bio ethanol manufacturers.

Don't be fooled by names, its all backed by oil company money. When it takes off globally, and shell wants the exposurr, you can bet that Raizen will be bought out and renames Shell-Biofuels or something similar.

[xpensive]

...
Also, do the exhaust pipes have to be that stretched out!?? (Page 189) That would be horrible for the center of gravity and airflow, no?

Any help is appreciated, thank you, I'm sorry for the elementary questions compared to the last few pages….

I wouldn't read too much from the animated images presented so far, as for the Renault, not only the xhausts, but also the intercooler looks ridcilously oversized for one bar 1,6 V6. Actually, I believe the inlet and outlet don't match the core of the intercooler.

As for you questions, there are no elementary or stupid such.

[WhiteBlue]

We should not forget in the fuel discussion that the FiA has a big constituency on the mobility side. The top guys like Todt always consider that. In the eighties they strayed away from commercial petrol and it was rectified. Since then a road like petrol formulation has always been maintained. There is no indication in my view that anything will change before 2019 earliest with the policy of having road car similar formulations in F1. That is the minimum time frame we have to consider for the 2014 engines.

The FiA is also Eurocentric. So it is no surprise that they allow bio content which is mandatory in European petrol supply. It should follow that companies that deal with that bio content can equally utilize F1 as a marketing platform and do that in coexistence with fossil based fuel companies.

If there is anything that we can see as a trend with regard to bio content it is probably the slow uptake in F1 in comparison with LMP1. The ACO uses E10 and is currently discussing E20. F1 fuel is much more conservative and more fossil orientated. One could speculate but the oil money is very likely to be behind that. F1 as far as the commercial approach is concerned always looks after the big spenders.

If a fuel company buys one of the big bio content providers - as Chris has speculated - we may see a shift towards more bio content.

Finally lets have a look at the idea of a single fuel supplier. Does it make sense? Unless the fuel competition starts to need a lot of testing and money by the teams I think that fuel and lubricant supply will be competitively organized in F1. It simply brings in more money than using only one supplier. Bernie would be the last person who would stop several companies throwing money at F1 and the teams have no interest whatsoever to eliminate sponsorship from their budgets. Hence I think they all will tell the fuel suppliers to do their best within the legal boundaries but not to upset the old apple cart. If you look at the money Shell, Total and Petronas have pumped into F1 over the last decade the teams would be crazy to support something that would endanger their nice little gold mine there.

[Blackout]

...
Also, do the exhaust pipes have to be that stretched out!?? (Page 189) That would be horrible for the center of gravity and airflow, no?

Any help is appreciated, thank you, I'm sorry for the elementary questions compared to the last few pages….

I wouldn't read too much from the animated images presented so far, as for the Renault, not only the xhausts, but also the intercooler looks ridcilously oversized for one bar 1,6 V6. Actually, I believe the inlet and outlet don't match the core of the intercooler.

As for you questions, there are no elementary or stupid such.

Yeah let's talk intercoolers too. what size do you believe they will have ?

And what about micro-tube radiators ? will we see them soon in F1 ? are do some teams already use them ?

[xpensive]

With the relatively low boost, one bar is more like a street-car, and the way F1 is aero-run these days, I think they will be very small and efficient, possibly water to air or something like that. Nothing like that Renault image anyway.

[WhiteBlue]

Intercoolers are not the only additional cooling requirement. There will be fluid cooling of the ICE, the charge air, the MGU-H, the MGU-K, the power electronics and potentially the gearbox oil. All those circuits add a lot of plumbing and weight. So we can expect to see some really nerdy optimization going into this in order to find an optimum packaging solution. One thing that I find convincing is using only one charge air cooler. It should save a lot of space and weight. Perhaps we will see the charge air cooling in one side pot and the ICE cooling in the other. The other systems will be distributed to the two sides to get a symmetrical distribution of radiator area and weight. This is just a speculation but one that could become reality.

[Blackout]

: )
Here the Merc KERS before and after they merged the battery and the control unit
and its cooling system